This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 36,051 JUAN DELGADO, 6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Fernando R. Macias, District Judge Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION ZAMORA, Judge.

18 {1} Juan Delgado (Defendant) appeals from his jury trial convictions of two counts of non-residential burglary. [DS 2; RP 95, 102] This Court issued a notice proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.

3 {2} Defendant argued in his docketing statement the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict as to each of the counts of burglary. [DS 4] In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to hold, based on the facts set forth in the docketing statement, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions.

7 [CN 4] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed burglary but does not point to any errors in law or fact in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition. [MIO 4] “A party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact[,]” and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 13 P.2d 1003, superseded by statute on other grounds by State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA- 031, 297 P.3d 374. Because Defendant has not demonstrated the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict, we hold his convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and affirm.

17 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge

1 WE CONCUR:

3 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

5 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge